Pretty much. If the discussion were to go on much further, we would find that you reject their form of tongues but accept their style of music and the exhibitionistic preaching styles. The natural (i.e. carnal) responses to these things admittedly feel great. Undiscerning minds confuse the feelings with the work of the Spirit.
But as I said before, where one of the sign gifts is active, we should see the rest of them, but tongues is easier to fake than miracles and healings. And if a person has worked himself into enough of a frenzy, he can naturally speak in a gibberish without any effort on his part. In his mind he can actually sit back and observe himself in this ecstatic state and think that the Spirit has fallen upon him and taken control. In other words, he's faked himself out.
This has happened in the SBC in a limited sense. They have accepted wholesale the driving music, swaying with arms raised, head back and eyes lidded, and they have confused their feelings with the work of the Spirit. Now they want a "new" way to feel more in tune with God. Tongues is the next logical step. Language and music are inextricably linked.
So, I find it interesting—no, revealing—that the thrust in the SBC now is to accept the operation of tongues in the absence of the other sign gifts.
I do not accept the operation of tongues in my SB church---its simply not needed---everyone there understands English!!!
If fully understood----the "speaking in tongues" was never a part of the worship experience in the early church of Acts
There was the preaching of the word by the Apostles---there was the understanding of the preaching in the listener's own dialect---thus the thrust of worship was not on tongues at all but on the preaching of the word.
TC, I notice a pattern in most of your posts. You mostly ask questions and very seldom offer any insight or opinion on a particular topic. Is there a reason for all the questions?
It is obvious you aren't asking for the knowledge, it kinda looks like the questions are only for getting at the root of other peoples' opinions.
1. You are correct about the tongue-speaking nonsense.
But on the worship style, one question I must ask of you: Is there a particular of music that is only God-prescribed?
2. To my knowledge, not every at a Charismatic worship engages in tongues.
Those who don't engage, What do you think of their worship?
3. I see you have a copyright on what is acceptable worship, even down to the proper gestures.
When did you receive such an ordination?
4. What do you do about the reports of missionaries on the mission field concerning tongue-speaking?
Do you know who else uses this argument? Practically every non-Christian who engages in a discussion on religion. I'll answer you like I'll answer them.
God has the copyright on acceptable worship, not I. I'm merely telling you that you look to the Scriptures in vain to justify Charismatic forms of worship.
I'm pressed for time, so I'll deal with your other questions later.
There is a prescribed decorum for Christian worship. There is also a prescribed decorum for Christian interaction which is contrasted with the excesses to which the world goes. So it's not only music, but any method of communication (i.e., verbal and nonverbal interaction) is bound by that decorum.
The goal of Charismatic worship is a feelin'. (It's also the goal of modern worship, especially in churches whose pastors were formerly youth pastors.) This feelin' finds its culmination in ecstatic experiences, not always tongues, but mostly. (In the SBC this feelin' is in the defiance of their elders and modern worship. So far, anyway.)
My first experience with ecstatic worship was in repeating "hallelujah" over and over while the piano played against the background of the cacophony of moans and praises and screams. I'm going to tell you—it feels great! And if there were tears, all the better. One went home feelin' charged, like everything was right with the world.
Then it happened one night. The culmination of my Charismatic experience. I spoke in tongues. I can't describe to you the feelin' when in an altered state of consciousness, you are "out of your body" watching as your mouth involuntarily utters clear and distinct, non-repeating syllables that sound just like one is speaking in another language. It didn't sound like gibberish. It sounded like a language. It was the language of angels! The experience lasted maybe five minutes. When I "came to," only two of the five or six people who were laying hands on me remained. Then I knew that I knew that I knew that I had the Holy Spirit, but only until the feelin' went away.
Charismatics who either don't have the personality to give themselves over to worship like that, or are too honest or naive to fake it, will not receive an experience like that, and will not remain Charismatics for long. They eventually give up, some concluding that Charismatics are kooky, and others thinking themselves too unworthy, unlovely, and rejected of God. (These are actually closer to the Kingdom of Heaven for their experience than the pew jumpers.)
It was through a systematic study of the Scriptures that I eventually forsook Charismania for true, spiritual worship.
I spoke to this one above, but I will add that I've been where you're wanting to go. It ain't right.
Is this request for definitions to the floor?
If not, I am a kibbitzer.
The Spirit, The Holy, the Comforter, third person of the triune God, indwelled the First Assembly(the one Jesus started on the shores of Galilee) on the Day of Pentecost.
He still indwells New Testament churches--those who are still earnestly contending for The Faith which was once delivered to the Saints, Jude 3.
Not all churches have the indwelling--some have had their candlestick removed.
Some never had a candlestick.
Apostasy:
falling away from the Truth.
Corollaries:
An apostate church
divided in two parts is two apostate churches.
Continued division will make an exponential number of apostate churches.
A reformed apostate church is exactly that.
Enter:
Joseph Smith Jr.---no, if he was right, we all need to be LDS.
The scripture says it is not possible to deceive the elect.
There will be a remnant, holding the divine candlestick, the pillar and ground of The Truth.
She is also called The Bride.
Wow... what a statement.
Glad you're here to point that out to us and show us the way.
:rolleyes:
Can you honestly make this statement?
Have you been in, a part of, or worshipped in "most of the churches today"?
This comes across as arrogant and inflammatory.
I don't mean this as rude, but do you think that the Bible is ambigious? On a couple threads I have seen you say something similar to this, referring to our 'oppinions' on the Bible. I'm just honestly wondering whether or not you have a post-modern epistemology that says truth is not knowable. I kind of doubt it, but I just want to make sure, lol, you never know now days. :)
I was. So were the Corinthians. It isn't a doctrine that saves, it is a Person. I would classify Charismania as cult-like, if not as a cult. It ain't Scriptural, so it ain't Baptist.
But I grow tired of playing Twenty Leading Questions with you.